Why are U.S. citizens no better than Tax-Slaves…?

“In this New World Order the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.” — Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, ‘La Revue de Paris’, p.574, June 1, 1928” 14. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: “When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves.”

I come across quotes, like the one above, on occasion and I am reminded of the salient fact that there are indeed people of this world who are no doubt out-of-their ever-lov’n minds. Those internationalists forever seeking world domination will stop at nothing to carry out their nefarious plans. And the damning fact is in most respects it is a done deal. After all, when a man no longer owns his private, property of labor, he is indeed just another international public slave.

And it is not as if people even way back then were not being warned by those who were quite familiar with the sound of bureaucratic goose-steppers to those very goals:

“ONE OF THE STRONGEST OPPONENTS OF THE 16TH AMENDMENT, RICHARD E. BYRD, speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates makes an impassioned plea to reject it.  He says:

“A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business; the eye of the Federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house… The law will of necessity have inquisitorial features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery.  Under it men will be hailed into courts distant from their homes.  Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the tax payer.  An army of Federal inspectors, spies and detectives will descend upon the state…Who of us who have had knowledge of the doings of the Federal officials in the Internal Revenue service can be blind to what will follow?  I do not hesitate to say that the adoption of this amendment will be such a surrender to imperialism that has not been seen since the Northern states in their blindness forced the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments upon the entire sisterhood of the Commonwealth.””  http://americansabroad.org/issues/taxation/history-of-us-taxes-abroad/

Apparently those wise words fell on deaf ears. The IRS is a spy agency first and foremost, where “incomes” are to be found and taxed with the strong-arm of the Bankers Law. Well of course, that “international” quality of its purpose is held aloof, from the publics mind even as people are continuously bombarded with the never-ending tripe it is for the “U.S. citizens” fair share of the governments expenses–on the international stage.  Never mind the fact the government placed itself in an ass-backwards, international-banking syndicate relationship for no particular rightful purpose, other than to extinguish its own sovereign authority over the Coin of the realm. Talk about stupid to the extreme. Funny how those bureaucratic snakes shout down from their civil servant perches, all ye citizens will obey us by such “International authority” with such amazing powers of said authority,  and yet, only to enforce their own poverty of reason and ignorance of the purpose of Law. After all, they gave AWAY for nothing, but paper promises, the very specie power so granted, to heal such national defects paper-debt created, thus these socialist miscreants purposely prevented proper resolution to the very crises they helped to create!

Thus, into the quagmire one must enter in order to determine what is really lurking in the depths of the “International Code” not unlike entering the very Gates of Hell itself.  Yo Dante pass me a sword!

—–(b) Citizens or residents of the United States liable to tax. In general, all citizens of the United States, wherever resident, and all resident alien individuals are liable to the income taxes imposed by the Code whether the income is received from sources within or without the United States. Pursuant to section 876, a nonresident alien individual who is a bona fide resident of a section 931 possession (as defined in §1.931-1(c)(1) of this chapter) or Puerto Rico during the entire taxable year is, except as provided in section 931 or 933 with respect to income from sources within such possessions, subject to taxation in the same manner as a resident alien individual. As to tax on nonresident alien individuals, see sections 871 and 877.

(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its {International} jurisdiction is a citizen. [The red color enforces the distinction] For other rules governing the acquisition of citizenship, see chapters 1 and 2 of title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401-1459). For rules governing loss of citizenship, see sections 349 to 357, inclusive, of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1481-1489), Schneider v. Rusk, (1964) 377 U.S. 163, and Rev. Rul. 70-506, C.B. 1970-2, 1. For rules pertaining to persons who are nationals but not citizens at birth, e.g., a person born in American Samoa, see section 308 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1408). For special rules applicable to certain expatriates who have lost citizenship with a principal purpose of avoiding certain taxes, see section 877. A foreigner who has filed his declaration of intention of becoming a citizen but who has not yet been admitted to citizenship by a final order of a naturalization court is an alien. [But is not a resident alien individual or a nonresident alien individual? That would be three classes of aliens so far identified not including the illegal alien or the Classified Aliens from extra-terrestrial origination.]

{A quick check—NONRESIDENT ALIEN INDIVIDUALS 29.211 1 Taxation of aliens in general. For the purposes of chapter 1 alien individuals are divided generally into two classes, namely resident aliens and nonresident aliens. Resident aliens are in general taxable the same as citizens of the United States, that is a resident alien is taxable on income derived from all sources, including sources without the United States.  Nonresident aliens are taxable only on income from sources within the United States. For classification of nonresident aliens see 29.211 7 }

1394494125360 1394502909654 1394503367656 1394520792201

(d) Effective/applicability date. *The second sentence of paragraph (b) of this section applies to taxable years ending after April 9, 2008.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 7332, 39 FR 44216, Dec. 23, 1974; T.D. 9391, 73 FR 19358, Apr. 9, 2008]

{Sec. 931. Income from sources within Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands.}

{Until 1996, section 877 was a rarely considered provision of the tax code which provided that if a U.S. citizen expatriated by giving up his or her citizenship, certain tax consequences could ensue if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could establish that the expatriation was tax-motivated. The burden of proof was on the IRS, and the provision was rarely invoked. That of course has changed quite substantially today.}

–pertaining to the Canadian Tax Treaty—*at the city of Washington this seventeenth day of June In the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and forty-two and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and sixty sixth seal Franklin D Roosevelt By the President                                           Cordell Hull Secretary of State

[The Internal Revenue Code provides in part as follows Sec 22 Gross income

b Exclusions from gross income
The following items shall not be Included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter.
7 Income exempt under treaty – Income of any kind to the extent required by any treaty obligation of the United States.
Sec 62 Rules and regulations
The Commissioner with the approval of the Secretary shall prescribe and publish all rules and regulations for the enforcement of this chapter]

Note the quality of International Jurisdiction so referenced… in the following section is where the IRS points with a crooked finger where the GI is established:

— 26 U.S.C. § 61 : US Code – Section 61: Gross income [From 1939 code section 22]

—“Prior to 1954, the income tax was levied upon “net income”. Gross income was, pursuant to the preceding act, the 1939 Code, determined in accordance with the 1940 regulations, of which § 19.22(b)-1 provided:  “(b) Exclusions from gross income — The following items shall not be included in gross income and shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter:

Sec. 19.22(b)-1Exemptions—Exclusions from gross income—Certain items of income specified in section 22(b) are exempt from tax and may be excluded from gross income. These items, however, are exempt only to the extent and in the amount specified. No other items are exempt from gross income except (1) those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government;

{WHY? Is it simply because no International authority of Congress Assembled can be legislated in a Sovereign Union State? That is a simple answer: yes… but the Code prevents that answer from simple discernment.}

(2) those items of income which are exempt from tax on income under the provisions of any Act of Congress still in effect: and (3) the income exempted under the provisions of section 116. Since the tax is imposed on net income, the exemption referred to above is not to be confused with the deductions allowed by section 23 and other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code to be made from gross income in computing net income. As to other items not to be included in gross income, see sections 22 Or 112 119 127 [the predecessor of the current 1.861-1 et seq.] . . . ” http://www.tax-freedom.com/NoTaxClearlyLaid.htm

—--*“Congressional Record–  Congressional Record – House, for March 27, 1943, pp. 2578, et seq. Report to Congress on the nature of the income tax. On p. 2580, the report stipulates that, “The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax: it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.”

——“Federal Register—Federal Register for 1956, page 5852 (Volume number isn’t on the photocopy presently in hand), Treasury Dept. Order 150-42. This order was executed July 27, 1956, by Acting Secretary of the Treasury, David W. Kendall, filed as F.R. Doc. 56-6280, on Aug. 3, 1956. This order delegates authority for the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to administer internal revenue laws of the United States in the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It simultaneously terminated administration via customs district and regional offices in Florida, Georgia and New York. The order was revised slightly in 1986 to extend the Commissioner’s authority to “other areas of the world” subject to jurisdiction of the United States. To the best of my knowledge, this is the only delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue which specifies Commissioner of Internal Revenue and IRS territorial jurisdiction. “—http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/Tax_IRSTable.htm

“Although the first 1,564 sections of the Internal Revenue Code are devoted to the Income Tax, the term “income”, the very subject of the tax, is not defined.  Nor is the term defined in any of the related regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department.   Nor is the term “taxable” defined in the Code or regulations.”

Going back to this statement: those items of income which are, under the Constitution, not taxable by the Federal Government;–not taxable by the omnipotent powers?? Is this due to limited jurisdiction as such Jurisdiction only applies to matters of International Law? The key to unraveling the whole of the Code is to keep repeating the magic words—And subject to the {Internationall} jurisdiction thereof— why are State National Citizens NOT subject to the International authority of Congress? Can you say State Sovereignty….

When the Code tells the reader something called “Items of Income is excluded” not taxable— it is also declaring that such Items are the deciding factor to which the Law is applied. Too bad the Code does not specify the WHY more clearly or address the claim “income means everything that comes in” is not the same as wherever so derived by source, so long as it is inherently indirect as taxable by the International Authority.

—-*COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME 29.21 1 Meaning of net income:  a tax imposed by chapter 1 is upon income. Neither income exempted by statute or fundamental law, nor expenses, incurred in connection therewith, other than interest, enter into the computation net income as defined by section 21 (See section 24 (a) (5))

In the computation of the tax various classes of income must be considered:

1 *Income in the broad sense meaning all wealth which flows in to the taxpayer other than as a mere return of capital. It includes the forms of income specifically described as gains and profits, including gains derived from the sale or other disposition of capital assets. Cash receipts alone do not always accurately reflect income, for the Internal Revenue Code recognizes as income determining factors other items among which are inventories, accounts, receivable property, exhaustion and accounts payable for expenses incurred. See sections (22) (23) (24) and 117

[*This meaning of Income has nothing to do with the lawful meaning as found in the 16th amendment per the 1909 Excise tax on Corporations. There was no broad sense and the unsubstantiated sentence is proof positive of what a damn evil lie was already being peddled to the unsuspecting public way back in 1939.]

2 Gross income meaning income in the broad sense less income {which is by statutory provision or otherwise exempt from the tax imposed by chapter 1 (See section 22)

3 Net income meaning gross income less statutory deductions:

The statutory deductions are in general, though not exclusively,  expenditures other than capital expenditures connected with the production of income See sections 23 and 24

4 Net income less credits See sections 25 26 27 and 28

b The normal taxes and surtaxes on*individuals and on corporations are computed upon net income less credits. Although taxable net income is a statutory conception it follows subject to certain modifications as exemptions and as to deductions for losses in some cases the lines of commercial usage. Subject to these modifications statutory net income is commercial net income. [Why not citizens? So individuals must contain all classes of {aliens} and citizens? If so where is this term “Individual” so defined as used?]

—–“Table of Contents for Subtitle A of Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code. This table verifies that what most people know as “income tax” is actually “normal tax”. Income tax is a broad classification of excise taxes. The “normal tax”, resurrected from the Civil War period tax on Federal officers and employees, was resurrected in 1918. It is a “privilege” excise tax where the wage of the Federal employee is the measure, not the object of the tax. It made its way through the Public Salary Tax of 1939, then was eventually classified in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.

—–“40 Stat. 1062, the revenue act of 1918. This act resurrected the “normal tax”, which had been repealed following the Civil War. In 1916 and 1917, Congress had attempted to impose “income” tax on everyone, but the Supreme Court frustrated the effort several times by pushing Congress back into a box with the definition of the term “income”, which was construed to be an excise tax. In the 1918 act specified, “in lieu of the taxes imposed by subdivision (a) of section 1 of the Revenue Act of 1916 and by section 1 of the Revenue Act of 1917, there shall be levied, collected, and paid for each taxable year upon the net income of every individual a normal tax at the following rates…” In the definition of gross income, at § 213(a), imposition of the tax on officers and employees of United States Government is specified. The definition of “employee” at the current 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c) roughly corresponds. This tax is now classified in Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code.

—–“42 Stat. 233, as pertains to the “normal tax”. This is a portion of the revenue act of November 23, 1921. Via this act, Congress abolished virtually all general application excise taxes, classified as “income” taxes, except the “normal tax” that was resurrected in 1918 (40 Stat. 1062). Application to Federal and territorial government officers and employees is articulated in § 213(a) (42 Stat. 238). Repeal of the other excise/income taxes is in the latter portion of the act, which isn’t reproduced in this table. When the various excises were reenacted, they were enacted under Congress’ territorial authority, not Article I § 8 authority. No taxing statute in the current Internal Revenue Code has general application in the Union of several States.

—–47 Stat. 1517, Reorganization of Executive Departments. This act was enacted March 3, 1933, the day before Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated. It set the stage for Roosevelt’s declaration of emergency, proclamation of the bank holiday, and calling the special session of Congress, all of which was done shortly after midnight the morning of Monday, March 6. Geographical application of the authority is revealed in definitions of “United States” and “public use” in Title II § 1(a) & 1(b) (47 Stat. 1520). Authority was, and is, applicable only in the District of Columbia, and in territories and insular possessions of the United States subject to sovereignty of the United States under the territorial clause, at Article IV § 3 ¶ 2 of the Constitution. One of the major Executive Orders under this authority was E.O. #6166, which restricts civil and criminal prosecution under internal revenue laws by vesting exclusive authority in the Attorney General. Until the Attorney General formally authorizes civil or criminal prosecution, a U.S. Attorney does not have authority to prosecute tax-related cases. Only a portion of this lengthy act is reproduced in this table. “— http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Indiv/MeadorDan/Articles/Tax_IRSTable.htm

–Also keep this ruling in mind—{See also, Water Quality Ass’n v. United States, 795 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1986), where, citing and quoting Calamaro, the court added at p. 1309:

“It is a basic principle of statutory construction that courts have no right first to determine the legislative intent of a statute and then, under the guise of its interpretation, proceed to either add words to or eliminate other words from the statute’s language. DeSoto Securities Co. v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 409, 411 (7th Cir. 1956); see also 2A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 47.38 (4th ed. 1984).}

Section 21. Net Income

(a) Definition.—“Net income” means the gross income computed under section 22, less the deductions allowed by section 23.

Section 22. Gross Income
(a) General Definition.—“Gross income” includes gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service, of whatever kind and in whatever form paid, or from professions, vocations, trades, business, commerce, or sales, or dealings in property, whether real or personal,…

Section 23. Deductions From Gross Income
(a) Expenses.—
(1) In General.—All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any *trade or business, including a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;

Section 24. Items Not Deductible
(a) General Rule.—In computing net income {commercial} no deduction shall in any case be allowed in respect of—
(1) Personal, living or family expenses; (not deductible for a business net-income…)

Section 25. Credits of Individual Against Net Income
(a) Credits for Normal Tax Only.—There shall be allowed for the purpose of the normal tax, but not for the surtax, the following credits against the net income:
(3) Earned Income Credit.—10 per centum  of the amount of the earned net income, but not in excess of 10 per centum of the amount of the net income. {two classes of net-income… credits.}
(4) Earned Income Definitions.—For the purpose of this section—

(A) “Earned income means wages, salaries, professional fees, and other amounts received  as compensation for personal services actually rendered, *but does not include any amount not included in gross income, nor that part of the compensation, derived by the taxpayer, for personal services rendered by him, to a corporation, which represents a distribution of earnings, or profits, rather than a reasonable allowance as compensation for the personal services actually rendered.  In the case of a taxpayer, engaged in a **trade or business in which both personal services and capital are material income producing factors, a reasonable allowance as compensation for personal services actually rendered by the taxpayer, not in excess of 20 per centum of his share of the net profits of such **trade or business, shall be considered as earned income.  {Note no longer termed earned net income..} **[Specialized term not defined where it is used… but means international Trade or Business in most cases and a Public Office in others… but still subjects of Congress Assembled jurisdiction thereof.]

(b)  Credits for Both Normal and Surtax–There shall be allowed for the purposes of the normal tax and the surtax the following credits against net-income.
(1) Personal Exemption
(2) Credit for Dependents

—*Shades of a double negative—but does not include [[any amount]] not included in gross income— Amounts of what? Lets try this from a different angle of proper English:  Every car pulling into the gas station never has the exact same amount of fuel in their tanks. That  dumb kid will never amount to anything as an adult. –verb– to be equal to. Borrowing money and not returning it amounts to stealing. (Banking & Finance) a principal sum plus the interest on it, as in a loan. What is left out is that this was for U.S. nationals working in foreign nations and federal employees. By mixing up terms with sly variations of meanings the Code alludes to a broader quality of application which it inherently does not possess lawfully. A big net is thrown over the possibilities of Income so derived from proper Items of Source, but any specifics to State Citizens are purposely omitted and Thereby Imposed by semantics.

In just a few of these sample paragraphs the word income is co-joined many different ways: gross income,  material income producing, Items of Income, Earned income,  the net income, Earned net-income, Income singular not Incomes, any amount of forms of income and taxable net income. Adjusted gross income is a later addition. According to the Code Income is just another noodle in a pot by a thousand names. One has to wonder how difficult it must have been to simply organize a set of instructions based on the actual Law (so claimed) where the State Citizen can easily understand the actual requirements to fulfill the liability for International related sources of excise taxes. Unnecessary complexity is a dead give away that something else is being obscured. A color coded chart and graph could easily distinguish specific terminology thereby eliminating any confusion or ambiguity. These infernal code writers want people to make mistakes by purposeful omission. To fool the general population they have to induce cognitive dissonance to hide the LIE in plain sight. The IRS makes money by purposely inducing mistakes thereby increasing penalties–while collecting an International excise tax as measured by Income so derived.   

Nothing in the Code so specifies why payment for private sector labor can be under the international jurisdiction thereof…. Is Congress Assembled the international Boss of all State Citizens who merely work for a living, while paid by the hour? Or is this A Tax on the “citizen” for merely being a resident of a State? And what State is that exactly…. geophysical or political?

The hook here is said to be the 16th, but it is in fact the 14th … the very one touted as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States adopted in 1868; which extends the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the states as well as to the federal government. And yet the right to work unmolested by the feds is not one of these Rights? How duplicitous of these federal servants to claim the original Federal Bill of Rights are just an after-thought to the great sovereign powers so Granted… and that a Direct Tax on private sector labor, no matter what it is CALLED by legal fictions is still paid by the man whose property of labor is indeed directly taxed. A man cannot evade a tax on his labors so it is merely collected “indirectly” and just like Magic that “A TAX” is under the international jurisdiction thereof so applied to the citizen. He cannot escape the “A tax” on his singular source of  non-international “incomes” and thus is just another wage-slaver controlled by a distant, dead-cold hand from a worm-eaten bank.

“1932     FEDERAL INCOME TAXES WERE CUT FIVE TIMES IN THE 1920’S, but the onset of the depression creates a need for new revenues.  In 1932, only $1.5 billion is collected compared to $5.5 billion in 1920.

CONGRESS ENACTS A NEW TAX LAW raising tax rates and lowering exemption levels. The foreign earned income exclusion is taken away from the gross income definition section and becomes codified in I.R.C. Section 116, Exclusion from Gross Income. The law expands the applicability of the foreign earned income exclusion by permitting profit derived from a {International} trade or business into which both personal services and capital have been injected to be considered 20% income and eligible for exclusion.  (The Revenue Act of 1932, Chapter 209, Section 116(a), 47 Stat. 169, 204-05).

Only one sentence actually infers Natural born State Citizens are subject to a tax on federal [International] citizenship:    14th Amendment, Section 1.  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the {International} jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The noun JURISDICTION has 2 senses:
1. (law) the right and power to interpret and apply the law
2. in law; the territory within which power can be exercised
Familiarity information: JURISDICTION used as a noun is rare.——

The logical assertion which is derived from this statement— and subject to the [International] jurisdiction thereof   is that those “persons” who are NOT subject to such jurisdiction cannot be citizens or residents of the United States. In addition, if only such persons existed prior to the passage of the 14th, such a term already had to include a relationship of state Citizen and therefore already a United States citizen. It is absurd to claim the People had to wait all those years before they suddenly realized they had no State citizenship. Or worse yet if they went abroad had no Right to define themselves as American citizens. The fact is most PEOPLE, who were not slaves, never had any need for another law telling them what they already knew to be true. The only people who had no rights as State Citizens, also had no rights as United States citizens. Therefore, the sentence  — and subject to the international jurisdiction thereof — was not needed by white Americans and only serves as an exclusion to forever bar such “persons of slavery” from ever attaining the same class of Citizenship as State Nationals who were of the white race.

{(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof— (1) Person

The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.}
AN “individual” so construed to be an artificial “Person” in six terms and in this section the “individual” so declared is not defined. One can muse that the Code writers stuck the term “individual” here to confuse the proper quality between living men and fictions called persons.

This sentence of exclusion, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the only tenuous connection the Congress (so assembled) has within its grasp to lay a tax on “Subjects” otherwise never under its International jurisdiction by proper Constitutional meaning.  There can be no question that before this amendment was “claimed” to be proper law that such a creature, so named as a U.S. citizen, never actually existed. If Congress already had under its “jurisdiction” an international  subject called a U. S. citizen why bother with an amendment to make the power of jurisdiction already in use re-affirmed as used? This results in an absurdity that Congress needed to write yet another law to re-gain subject authority over the citizen in question. If the citizen in question is a member of the white race, when did Congress gain such international jurisdiction? Congress is forever barred from legislating in the Union States, which are sovereign as itself and the People which created their “Institutions” to serve their needs.

Surprisingly enough, one can argue that when slaves were deemed private property under the ratified united states of America,  and were then subject to the rules of apportionment, where they resided in the several States of the South, such jurisdiction was established over them. These slaves were regarded as property not Citizens in the pool of We the People. In the States allowing their Citizens to own “human property” blacks were essentially regarded as no better than mules in regards to Rights so declared for the White Race and none other. And yet, prior to the constitution so affirmed, the first black man to be owned by another man was one of his own race.
Anthony Johnson (c1600 — 1670) Notably, he is recognized for attaining great wealth after having been an indentured servant and for being one of the first legally recognized black slave-owners in the English colonies. In the early colonial years, most Africans in the Thirteen Colonies were held under contracts of indentured servitude. With the exception of those indentured for life, they were released after a contracted period[4] with many of the indentured receiving land and equipment after their contracts expired or were bought out. Johnson took ownership of a large plot of farmland after he paid off his indentured contract.[5]
In 1652 “an unfortunate fire” caused “great losses” for the family, and Johnson applied to the courts for tax relief. The court not only reduced the family’s taxes but on 28 February 1652, exempted his wife Mary and their two daughters from paying taxes at all “during their natural lives.” At that time taxes were levied on people not property, and under the 1645 Virginia taxation act, “all negro men and women and all other men from the age of 16 to 60 shall be judged tithable.”[7][8] It is unclear from the records why the Johnson women were exempted, but the change gave them the same social standing as white women, who were not taxed.
[8] During the case, the justices noted that Anthony and Mary “have lived Inhabitants in Virginia (above thirty years)” and had been respected for their “hard labor and known service”.[6]

 In this early period, free blacks enjoyed “relative equality” with the white community. Around 20% of free blacks in Virginia at this time owned their own homes, and half of those were married to white women.[23]

By 1665, racism was becoming more common. The Virginia Colony had passed a law in 1662 that children were born with the status of their mother, according to the Roman principle of partus sequitur ventrem; therefore, all children of slave women were born into slavery. This was a reversal of English common law, which held that for English subjects, children took the status of their father. Africans were considered foreigners and not English subjects.—–https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

The term subject, in regards to the King, also meant citizen of his realm. This distinction of the relationship so recognized is why in general most men of the Negro race were indeed foreigners to English law and its customs. By the time the Federal Constitution was ratified slavery was considered a fixture of the South. They framers of the constitution did not argue about the status of the citizenship of the Negro race only how they were to be taxed as property. Had the Congress so assembled for the first time decided that those of the Negro race were subjects (international foreign citizens) of the United States, why not declare them as such? States could only be admitted into the Union if they had a Republican form of government, therefore, any condition or quality which defeated that specific determination, excluded that State from proper admission into the Union. To argue from the position that Congress allowed this remarkable power of international jurisdiction to be dormant in all that time is substantially weak. The cold, hard fact is that a slave was property, of a Citizen, by the distinction such men and woman brought into the United States or born therein had no status as State citizens period.
Congress was specifically denied the power to legislate in the Sovereign States. When the term “United States” is used to designate “Congress Assembled” that is the only “international jurisdiction” so enumerated to them. Take a look at some of the more curious sections of Title 26 › Subtitle F › Chapter 79 › § 7701– Definitions

(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

(1) Person
The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.

(39) Persons residing outside United States

If any citizen or resident of the United States does not reside in (and is not found in) any United States judicial district, such citizen or resident shall be treated as residing in the District of Columbia for purposes of any provision of this title relating to—
(A) jurisdiction of courts, or
(B) enforcement of summons.

(9) United States
The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.

(10) State
The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.

(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

(26) Trade or business
The term “trade or business” includes the performance of the functions of a public office.

—–26 U.S.C. § 7701(a), general definitions applicable to the Internal Revenue Code. Of particular note, § 7701(a)(26) provides the following:

“The term ‘trade or business’ includes the performance of the functions of a public office.” This definition is restrictive, applicable solely to the category identified in the definition. Functions of “public office” are exclusive of nongovernment private enterprise. Those employed as officers and employees of U.S. government, and political subdivisions of the United States, are engaged in “United States trade or business” for purposes of subtitles A & C of the Internal Revenue Code.

(28) Other terms
Any term used in this subtitle with respect to the application of, or in connection with, the provisions of any other subtitle of this title shall have the same meaning as in such provisions.

(29) Internal Revenue Code
The term “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” means this title, and the term “Internal Revenue Code of 1939” means the Internal Revenue Code enacted February 10, 1939, as amended.

(30) United States person
The term “United States person” means—
(A) a citizen or resident of the United States

(45) Nonrecognition transaction
The term “nonrecognition transaction” means any disposition of property in a transaction in which gain or loss is not recognized in whole or in part for purposes of subtitle A.

Apparently most of what ordinary Americans do in regards to earning a living might very well be  a Nonrecognition transaction— non-taxpayer activity—

Just as the 16th used sly phrases to imply a direct tax, while also simultaneously inferring the indirect tax, the 14th used a phrase to imply an authority otherwise of no application— Congress cannot change the Constitutional foundation upon which its own enumerated powers rests without destroying those same powers. The cause of actions behind the 14th was born out of a deep hatred of the southern aristocratic lifestyle and had to be “ratified” at gunpoint. Just because it was wrapped up in claims of helping non-citizens does not make such unconstitutional methods less evil. There were other solutions to the problems being suffered by the free blacks of the South, but those northern hypocrites had no such intentions of helping anybody but themselves and their international masters.
1393825113355 1393824651309
1393821987542 1393821883720
The above screen shots provide yet more evidence that when it comes to the elusive nature of determining why the term U.S. citizen is synonymous with taxpayer, or is one of two check boxes on a plethora of forms, the simple answer as to WHY is not to be found. Here is another example:
     ” Generally, an individual is taxed on income earned if the taxpayer is deemed to be a U.S. citizen, resident alien or non-resident alien.  U.S. citizens and resident aliens are taxed on their worldwide income whether they reside in the U.S. or abroad using the rates specified in the Internal Revenue Code.  U.S. citizens and resident aliens working abroad must compute their tax liability similarly as those taxpayers working solely in the United States.  Non-resident alien individuals who are engaged in a trade or business in the U.S. are taxed in the same fashion as U.S. citizens and resident aliens on income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.  Thus, all individuals are required to annually file a federal income tax return on income earned whether inside or otherwise the U.S.”—http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=44b49eeb-30b4-4e4f-b95f-1e7be8332b98
And of course the IRS is always telling the general public it is frivolous to question the damning nature of  the infernal code:
—–“Rev. Rul.  2007-22
PURPOSE The Internal Revenue Service (Service) is aware that some taxpayers are claiming that they are not subject to federal income tax, or that their income is excluded from taxation, because:
 1) the taxpayers have declared that they have rejected or renounced United States citizenship because the taxpayers are citizens exclusively of a State (sometimes characterized as a “natural-born citizen” of a “sovereign state”);
or  2) the taxpayers claim they are not persons as identified by the Internal Revenue Code.  These taxpayers often furnish Forms W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate, to their employers on which the taxpayers claim excessive withholding allowances or claim complete exemption from withholding.  Based on these Forms W-4, federal income taxes are not withheld from wages paid.  Alternatively, these taxpayers attempt to avoid their federal income tax liability by submitting a Form 4852, Substitute for Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, or Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., to the Internal Revenue Service with a zero on the line for the amount of wages received.  These taxpayers often either fail to file returns, or file returns showing no income and claiming a refund for any withheld income taxes.
The Service is also aware that some promoters, including return preparers, market a book, package, kit, or other materials that claim to show taxpayers how they can avoid paying income taxes based on these and other meritless  arguments. This revenue ruling emphasizes to taxpayers, promoters and return preparers that all U.S. citizens and residents are subject to federal income tax.
Any argument that a taxpayer’s income is excluded from taxation because:  1) the taxpayer has rejected or renounced United States citizenship because the taxpayer is a citizen exclusively of a State (sometime characterized as a “natural-born citizen” of a “sovereign state”);
or 2) the taxpayer is not a person as defined by the Internal Revenue Code and is, therefore, not subject to federal tax, has no merit and is frivolous. The Service is committed to identifying taxpayers who attempt to avoid their federal tax obligations by taking frivolous positions.  The Service will take vigorous enforcement action against these taxpayers and against promoters and return preparers who assist taxpayers in taking these frivolous positions.  Frivolous returns and other similar documents submitted to the Service are processed through the Service’s Frivolous Return Program.  As part of this program, the Service determines whether taxpayers who have taken frivolous positions have filed all required tax returns; —–www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-07-22.pdf
Yeah, if a citizen asks any questions it is frivolous, but when the answers are absurd, diabolically contorted presumptions—- hey that’s federal international authority and that pesky subject called a citizen had better pay up or else.  My advise is to write your representatives and demand answers based on the Law and not subjective Political Policy by which authority is grossly mis-applied for purposes so damn evil surely the Devil himself must be the author of them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: